Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 887 (AP)

B. Lokaiah v. District Collector, Chittoor

2000-12-01

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY

body2000
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) DISPOSSESS them from plot Nos. 1 and 3 in sy. No. 298/2 over an extent of Ac. 0. 02 cents each of Muthyalareddypalle Village accounts, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor district without following any procedure and without giving any notice or opportunity to them as wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust. Heard. The petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issuance of a Writ of mandamus declaring the unauthorised high-handed action of the Mandal Revenue officer, the 3rd respondent herein at the instance of the District Collector, the 1st respondent in seriously making attempts to ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the then Tahsildar, Chandragiri granted house-site pattas in Sy. No. 298/2 of muthyalareddypalle Village. over an extent of Ac. 0. 02 cents each earmarking as plot nos. 1 and 3 in their favour on 28-8-1985. It is submitted that they have raised super structures in the said plots and continue in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. While the matter stood thus, one sankara Reddy, the former Sarpanch of the village made an attempt to interfere with their possession of the land. The petitioners were constrained to file O. S. Nos. 820 and 818 of 1985 on the file of the learned i Additional District Munsif, Tirupati for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suits were decreed as prayed for by judgment dated 1-2-1990. ( 3 ) IT appears that the said Sankara Reddy having lost the suit got an application filed by the Executive Officer of the Gram panchayat before the 1st respondent requesting to alienate an extent of Ac. 0. 80 cents of land in Sy. No. 298/2 in favour of the Gram Panchayat for use as library and public market by the Gram Panchayat. It so happened that the 1st respondent referred the matter for alienation. The 1st respondent by proceedings dated 2-1-1993 after hearing the Executive Officer of gram Panchayat prima facie came to conclusion that there is a materi irregularity coupled with the mistake of from in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent the matter of assignment of the land question to eligible persons. Accordingly, the 1st respondent granted stay of grant of house-sites to the petitioners herein pending disposal of the representation of the Executive Officer, Muthyalareddipalle gram Panchayat. Accordingly, the 1st respondent granted stay of grant of house-sites to the petitioners herein pending disposal of the representation of the Executive Officer, Muthyalareddipalle gram Panchayat. The 3rd respondent was directed to send the complete file for the perusal of the 1st respondent. ( 4 ) THE petitioners having come to know about the same went on making representations to the 1st respondent for an early disposal of the proposal made by the executive Officer so that they will know as to where they stand. However, the petitioners inter alia denied the allegations made against them. It is their case that they are landless poor persons and eke out their livelihood by doing coolie work. They do not have any other properties as alleged by the respondents. It is also stated that the sarpanch of the village who is inimically disposed of towards them has set up the executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat seeking alienation of the land in favour of the. Gram Panchayat only with a view to deprive their legitimate right. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, the complaint of the petitioners is that while the matter was under examination by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent on the directions of the 1st respondent came to the properties in question on 24-4-1996 and directed the petitioners to remove the super structures. Apprehending that they were likely to be dispossessed summarily from the land in question, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying for appropriate directions in the matter. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that the 1st respondent subsequent to the order dated 2-1-1993 vide proceedings Roc. B5/20888/92 issued another proceedings dated 13-2-1993 directing the 3rd respondent to take possession of the sites and to refer the same to the Government to locate a Government institution. In the counter-affidavit, at one place it is stated that the plots are still vacant as on to-day and at another place it is stated as if some third parties have encroached into the land in question including the land of the petitioners where some super-structures are raised. At any rate, we are not concerned with the same. The petitioners assert that they are in continuous possession of the same. At any rate, we are not concerned with the same. The petitioners assert that they are in continuous possession of the same. ( 7 ) THE simple question that arises for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent, if at all, could have passed the order adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners on the basis of a representation made by the Executive Officer of the Gram panchayat? the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 2-1-1993 does not suffer from infirmity as it is interlocutory in its nature. But the 1st respondent after granting interlocutory order ought to have made an elaborate enquiry into the matter by providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Admittedly, the land has been assigned to the petitioners as early as in the year 1985 by the then tahsildar, Chandragiri. May be according to the respondents, it was an irregular act but it cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before taking the decision to deprive them. However, no records are made available to see as to what exactly is the order passed by the 1st respondent. Even in the counter- affidavit it is not stated that the petitioners herein were heard in the matter and an order was accordingly passed by the 1st respondent. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents herein cannot be permitted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land in question by the petitioners. However, this order shall not preclude the 1st respondent to proceed further in the matter and make an appropriate enquiry to decide about the validity of assignment granted earlier to the petitioners. It would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to make an appropriate enquiry into the matter after putting the petitioners as well as the Gram panchayat on notice. An adequate opportunity shall be provided to the petitioners for making their representation in the matter. ( 9 ) THE Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.